Primary sources, folks. "The interview" took place long after the fact, to assist a for profit project. Sensation sells
to assist a for profit projectNo, the project was not initially intended to be published. Here are some words by the author from the introduction and acknowledgements sections:
I had noticed that the majority of research had been based either on previous research or on theories formulated by the authors and that a minority of the books utilized personal interviews of those who were closely intertwined with the events of that weekend. Furthermore, in the books that did contain references to interviews, were the participants quoted accurately or were their words contorted to fit some author’s preconceived theory? It was at that point, that I decided to try to locate some of those participants and learn for myself what they might have to say.
...I was intrigued by who these “players of the game” were and sought to learn more about their backgrounds, many of whom, especially among the law enforcement personnel, were portrayed in numerous books and manuscripts as being either sinister or shadowy figures. I wanted to judge for myself the credibility of those primary sources without having to rely on the subjective opinions of others which permeated much of the material on the assassination.
...After planning my first trip to Dallas, a fellow teacher encouraged me to borrow his video camera to tape the interviews. Realizing the importance of preparation, I also brought an audio cassette recorder as a backup sound system to the camera, a 35mm camera for still shots, and reference books to have signed by those I encountered. For the interviews themselves, a question-answer format was prepared which was designed to elicit responses regarding their backgrounds prior to the assassination, the chronology of events of their activities during the weekend of November 22–24, 1963, their views regarding conspiracy theories, and what had transpired in their lives since the assassination.
...When I first began this project, I had no ax to grind or theory to promote. I was willing to talk with anyone who was receptive toward being interviewed. Not only did I want to personally record their stories, but it was hoped that certain “problem areas” of the assassination highlighted by conspiracy writers could be clarified or resolved. Many of these issues were presented to those interviewed, especially to the Dallas policemen, of whom much criticism has been leveled over the years. Not surprisingly I found that those least interested in the assassination were those same Dallas policemen. Being the butt of sarcasm and ridicule, some were reluctant to talk, reasoning that whatever they might say would be twisted or altered to fit some writer’s theory of conspiracy. In short, they were tired of having their words turned around and comments being taken out of context. Fortunately, that first year the interviews I had with former Dallas policemen James Leavelle, Paul Bentley, L.C. Graves, and Elmo Cunningham went extremely well and paved the way for future interviews with other policemen, several of whom had not been interviewed either by the Warren Commission or other researchers. They had stories to tell but for various reasons had either not been contacted or were unwilling to be interviewed prior to 1987. I was particularly interested in talking with the Dallas policemen since they had generally either been ignored by assassination writers or because they were extremely selective with whom they talked. As I was to learn, this reluctance to defend themselves has made many of them easy targets for accusations, innuendoes, and in some cases outright libel. When they were convinced that I was sincere and had no hidden agenda were they willing to speak with me. Surprisingly, very few expressed serious concern about speaking on camera, though a few were reluctant to have their words published, apparently not wanting to become involved in all the controversy that it might entail with most of the assassination writers who, in their opinions, are concerned with little other than self-aggrandizement and the profit motive. They did not want their names associated with “mystery writers.”
I originally did not intent to write a book. Instead, I merely was interested in making a series of video taped interviews which I could use in my classroom. When I reviewed the tapes after the first trip, I was sufficiently impressed with the quality of the interviews to justify another trip. And thus the process of preparation repeated itself the following summer. Interestingly, though, I did not realize the full measure of quality of the tapes until I began to transcribe them and to see the interview in printed form. It then became apparent that what I had were insights into the events that I had not seen previously published and were of such significance that I entertained the idea of writing a book myself. However, I did not want it to be another work based on personal opinions or theories as were so many of the previously published books. Instead, I decided to let the subject of the interview speak for himself or herself and allow the reader to evaluate for themselves the merit of each story and its significance to the assassination. In short, it would be an oral history of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Amazingly, no one else had attempted or at least completed such a project.
...Throughout the ten-year sojourn to and from Dallas, the foremost concern of most of those interviewed was that their stories be reported accurately and unaltered. It is with a sense of appreciation, obligation, and responsibility that I have attempted to achieve those wishes. LARRY A. SNEED
